good idea.could you move any Resource to Humbolt Bridge? there is big difference between decay (-1) and bombardment. the Resource in Green River adds to "Eastern" player advantage because he can more easy secure his bridge.

Oneyed wrote:good idea.could you move any Resource to Humbolt Bridge? there is big difference between decay (-1) and bombardment. the Resource in Green River adds to "Eastern" player advantage because he can more easy secure his bridge.

Oneyed wrote:good idea.could you move any Resource to Humbolt Bridge? there is big difference between decay (-1) and bombardment. the Resource in Green River adds to "Eastern" player advantage because he can more easy secure his bridge.

Oneyed

OK Version 10.I had to move the resources away from Humboldt Bridge so that each side was even, but with this the "Morman" issue is each side of Prom Summit as a resource...Mormons for at Humboldt Wells and non-mormans for at Corinne.

the decay is out of gameplay here. while it is not possible to bombard yellow regions now, it is baseless if player will lost 1 unit each round - he will still hold the line...btw, it is still possible to do decay only to the last players unit? it is not possible to do decay to neutral...

Oneyed wrote:the decay is out of gameplay here. while it is not possible to bombard yellow regions now, it is baseless if player will lost 1 unit each round - he will still hold the line...btw, it is still possible to do decay only to the last players unit? it is not possible to do decay to neutral...

Oneyed

Decay to Neutral has not been implemented into xml yet.we can make the decay larger if that is better.or we can make 2 bombards and 2 decays.

A good compromise here would be to make the decays large enough to stop players stacking on them. If you run out of troops on one of the decays, you could not put any auto deployed troops there for the next turn. From Omaha, if you hold Julesberg you can get a +4 auto deploy from Omaha and US Govt Grants. With unlimited deployments you can bung 4+ on Julesberg for the next round. Make the decay so high (-100) that no one can do this.

The decay is to simulate the loss of lives and supplies, and to rebuild what was destroyed.

thanks isaiah40...

yes Oneyed...think of this.what koontz has said is correct...you could code it to stop players staking on them, but i think to simulate the conditions properly a balanced compromise would be needed and i would suggest -2 decay.

and...if there is only one bombardment place, then you will need to ensure you have enough troops on your start i.e. Omaha or Sacremento to do that bombardment when opponent has taken bridge first time ...but you are also going to have to deploy troops each side of the bombardment so that you can retake the bridges when you need to at the end fo the game.In this way, it still becomes a "race" without worry too much about too many other bombardments.

looking good.I understand your idea with decay. for me 2-2 (2 decay, 2 bombarded) would be better. the oponent will has much possibilities to attack you. but I am fine with current version if it is what you like

Am I reading it right that every position along each line is a +1 autodeploy?

I also think you should add a killer neutral along the way to that people can't just fort their base forward every turn. I would add another dynamic to it.

The "Silver & Gold Spike"...is that the winning condition? Or holding all 4 of them (Silver & Gold, Gold 1, Gold 2, and Silver) is the winning condition? Either way, I don't really like it. I think you should keep the 4 there, make them something other than Silver of Gold Spikes, and add a 5th that can be assaulted by the two "outside" spikes, and add a bonus to the 2 "inside" spikes, if you know what I mean. Give players an option to either go right for the spike, and perhaps grab a bonus before doing so.

Also, and I might be throwing too much at you, but you could also make a losing condition that if your opponent holds your any part of your line he wins too, just to give another option to win (going through all 4 center regions and grabbing one of your opponents regions).

Not that it's not spicy enough, but just suggesting some ideas to spice it up a little more lol.

nolefan5311 wrote:Am I reading it right that every position along each line is a +1 autodeploy?

yes, except for each start position of +2 autodeploy.

I also think you should add a killer neutral along the way to that people can't just fort their base forward every turn. I would add another dynamic to it.

i don't understand the logic here. The game is going to be long enough just getting to the end and overcoming the bombardment. Why ad more to it that is really going to be a bigger obstacle...you know they did actually achieve these goals, not put somethings in the way of destroying the line every time a train ran over it, which would be the equivalent of every turn. I think one bombardment from your oponent which can be repeated is enough.

The "Silver & Gold Spike"...is that the winning condition? Or holding all 4 of them (Silver & Gold, Gold 1, Gold 2, and Silver) is the winning condition? Either way, I don't really like it. I think you should keep the 4 there, make them something other than Silver of Gold Spikes, and add a 5th that can be assaulted by the two "outside" spikes, and add a bonus to the 2 "inside" spikes, if you know what I mean. Give players an option to either go right for the spike, and perhaps grab a bonus before doing so.

No, your not hearing the history. There were four spikes driven, which is part of the gameplay. Yes i need to clarify on the map that all four are needed as well as your line, but anything other than that is in my mind not an option.

Also, and I might be throwing too much at you, but you could also make a losing condition that if your opponent holds your any part of your line he wins too, just to give another option to win (going through all 4 center regions and grabbing one of your opponents regions).

Not that it's not spicy enough, but just suggesting some ideas to spice it up a little more lol.

Well, i think that according to history it's spicy enough and that gameplay would be going over the top. So no, that won't be done.Nolefan5311, thanks for the suggestions, but i think these were way outside of what i had in mind here.

Having every single region autodeploy is a little overkill and don't really understand why that's there. You're just putting a bunch of troops on the map that will never be used.

I'm not going to pretend I am intimate with the history of what the map is about, but it's not like the bombardment is historically accurate either. Adding a killer neutral would force players to not just keep a stack at their forward point in the line and be able to continually fort up their starting position (this can be avoided with the bombardment by a player just dropping at his forward point and creating a stack on the bridge by forting up his start positino). That's only going to make the dice that much more important. You have decaying neutrals...not sure why you seem to be so opposed to adding a killer.

All of my suggestions were put forward to take dice luck out of it as much as possible by adding a couple different strategic options.

nolefan5311 wrote:Having every single region autodeploy is a little overkill and don't really understand why that's there. You're just putting a bunch of troops on the map that will never be used.

Well i don't beleive the troops will never be used...all reinforcements in whatever sitaution will have to be planned well, so that players can achieve their goals.and they don't get those troops until they own the territory, so they have to conquer before they can get any autodeploy.

I'm not going to pretend I am intimate with the history of what the map is about, but it's not like the bombardment is historically accurate either.

That is somewhat true, although in RL if they wanted to hold up their opponent they very well had to capacity to do so if they wanted.

Adding a killer neutral would force players to not just keep a stack at their forward point in the line and be able to continually fort up their starting position (this can be avoided with the bombardment by a player just dropping at his forward point and creating a stack on the bridge by forting up his start positino). That's only going to make the dice that much more important. You have decaying neutrals...not sure why you seem to be so opposed to adding a killer.

Well, it's my opinion that it's too much, let's see if others have any opinion about it eh?

All of my suggestions were put forward to take dice luck out of it as much as possible by adding a couple different strategic options.

well i don't think we'll ever do that in any game since the dice are a force unto themselves from my experience. Some people also simply have better luck with dice as we see from Bruceswar on NZ 1v1 game. Lady luck is a force unto herself.

Nolefan5311, the other reason that i don't want killer neutrals used (that i have just thought about) is this...

'killer neutrals', which will reset to neutral at the beginning of the turn of the player who occupies it.

to me this means that a player will never get to achieve the objective of holding his line plus all all four spikes because the killer neutral will continually reset at the beginning of his turn and he wont be able to hold everything for one turnI could be wrong

cairnswk wrote:Nolefan5311, the other reason that i don't want killer neutrals used (that i have just thought about) is this...

'killer neutrals', which will reset to neutral at the beginning of the turn of the player who occupies it.

to me this means that a player will never get to achieve the objective of holding his line plus all all four spikes because the killer neutral will continually reset at the beginning of his turn and he wont be able to hold everything for one turnI could be wrong

This is correct, and something I didn't think about. My apologies lol.

cairnswk wrote:Nolefan5311, the other reason that i don't want killer neutrals used (that i have just thought about) is this...

'killer neutrals', which will reset to neutral at the beginning of the turn of the player who occupies it.

to me this means that a player will never get to achieve the objective of holding his line plus all all four spikes because the killer neutral will continually reset at the beginning of his turn and he wont be able to hold everything for one turnI could be wrong

This is correct, and something I didn't think about. My apologies lol.